Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rkrw who wrote (10817)	3/4/2004 2:15:53 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 52153

>> I remember well Rick's argument that the mogn drug was toxic as hell << Well.... yeah, but I was only countering someone who was misrepresenting it as a gentle cancer therapy. It was never an argument to be out of the stock (given Salagen).

To: rkrw who wrote (10817)	3/4/2004 2:45:01 PM
From: Ward Knutson	Respond to of 52153

<< still remember mogn (and you I believe) pointing to a single (maybe a couple) cancer patient who was doing very well>> Each of the Phase II trials were staged, a common practice at the NCI and in small bio/pharma at the time. If one patient out of the initial enrollment group (generally in the neighborhood of 15 patients) was an objective responder the trial would be expanded. This happened in prostate, ovarian, and pancreatic - all three of the initial Phase II trials with such a protocol. There was an announcement on each expansion, and I do recall ridicule over so-called touting one patient results. This red-flag "touting" reaction was out of line in my opinion. To those who followed the development it was obvious this was a material reportable - positive - event as it continued and expanded each trial via this trigger. <<I remember well Rick's argument that the mogn drug was toxic as hell>> No more so, and in key areas far less of an issue in severity, than the platinum agents or camptosar. What is your point? It is a chemo-agent, there are indeed toxicities. <<I've considered this type of push a red flag>> <<I've long seen mogn as a cult stock esp back then>> What part does superfluous analysis like this play in evaluating an investment? I prefer real analysis of the business model, assets and management team. The attraction for me was always the team and vision Blitzer worked to establish and instill was one with a history of shrewd in-licensing (Marion Labs) and not the higher-risk drug discovery. Irofulven was (and still is) a drug with great potential, however it is but one piece of MGI then and now.